Migration in Britain: the truth behind the headlines

By restricting entry, settlement and family reunification in the UK now, the UK risks putting off those that it will be seeking to attract in the future, as well as making the process of migration more precarious for all, says Ruth Grove White

Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

At the end of 2011 the immigration debate in the UK
is, understandably, shaped by wider pressing concerns. Life in austerity
Britain is set to become grimmer for many as the public purse strings are
tightened, unemployment rises and public services are further squeezed.

In this context, the flurry of facts and figures
coming from research centres, think tanks and economists which emphasise the
role of migration for supporting growth and contributing towards British
universities, businesses, towns and communities, have little chance of
capturing public imagination. On the contrary, when it comes to immigration,
the argument that appears to have gained most traction is coming from purveyors
of fear and blame such as MigrationWatch through clever messaging and red top
media support.

What do they bring to the table? The headline argument put
forward by MigrationWatch is that all but ‘properly controlled’ immigration
presents immediate threats to the UK, bringing congestion, competition and
overcrowding. The thrust of their current argument, projected through the
newspapers and a recent online petition, is that population growth is spiralling
out of control. They cite ONS statistics which project that the UK population
will rise to 70 million within 16 years, largely as a result of migration,
arguing that the only way to avoid these side effects is to take 'all necessary
steps’ to reduce immigration levels to the UK. According to MigrationWatch this
translates into a yearly net migration figure below 40,000 which is
needed to “stabilise population”.

There are many reasons to find this proposal
unconvincing and overly gloomy. Despite a host of restrictive policies over the
past decade, net migration has continued to increase. Figures for 2010
show that annual net migration to the UK in that year was 252,000, the highest
calendar figure on record, and proving that migration trends have a way of
defying the wishes of policy-makers. As pointed out by Matt Cavanagh at the ippr, really bringing about such a drop in
migration would likely involve drastic measures such as leaving the EU, making
all labour migration temporary, and stopping marriage of British citizens to
foreigners – most mainstream politicians would not seriously advocate these
measures.

But there is a wider context which urges that we look
beyond this position. Migrant Rights Network's recent meeting on global
migration, organized in partnership with Chatham House, explored the
difficulties of balancing national pressures against global challenges across
the EU, USA and UK. Although there are efforts to reduce migration across
western liberal democracies, the shifting global context is moving us in
another direction.

Like it or not, international mobility is set to
increase over coming decades – and will be likely to confound policy-makers who
find themselves unable to reconcile populist national agendas with the reality
of global trends. The 'Global Migration Futures' team at Oxford University
anticipates that likely ‘macrotrends’, such
as higher standards of education, cheaper technology and travel and climate
change in countries across the world, are likely to have significant impacts on
patterns of movement.

But it is not only people who will be wanting to move
– many states will be hoping to attract them. Future migrants are likely to
target countries with good prospects for growth and an ability to accommodate
international skills, talent and capital. Researcher Hein de Hass points to the
'self-centred
notion' of western states, that assume they will continue to be an
attractive destination to migrants in the future. But as we can begin to see
already, the financial crisis has made the prospects for migrants coming to
these countries significantly less appealing. He argues that, at the moment, it
is countries with booming economies and in closer proximity to migration source
countries, such as Mexico, Turkey, Brazil and India, that are attracting
migrants in large numbers, rather than the UK.

Looking ahead, the UK's need for migration is deeply
embedded, and is unlikely to decline. The UK is heavily reliant upon
international migration to sustain
our higher education sector, contribute
towards business, international trade and investment and provide
critical public services.

The Office of National Statistics projections
indicate a drop in the UK's working age population in relation to the cohort at
pension age by 2035 – in short, the UK may well be in greater need of skills
across the labour market in the future. But according to predictions of
researchers at the New Economics Foundation this is when UK will be in
real competition
for migrants with other developed nations, as well as with rising economic
superpowers such as China, India and Brazil, which provide more obvious return
for the investments made by migrants. By restricting the possibilities for
entry, settlement and family reunification in the UK now, the UK risks simply
putting off those that it will likely be seeking to attract in the future, as
well as making the process of migration more precarious for all.

All this is not to dismiss the challenges of the
present, but to point out the urgent need for a pragmatic long-view when
devising policies and when debating these issues. If continued immigration will
not only be inevitable but vital to our national interests, then surely the
best strategy is to plan for it by strengthening the structures and systems
which make it work for the benefit of all, rather than trying to turn back the
clock to no avail.

What we need is not time and money spent trying to
convince the public that less migration is both possible and desirable, but
efforts to build a better narrative and policy agenda which can prepare the UK
for occupying a place within the global economy and society of the future. This
will involve investing in local structures which support migrant integration,
regulating business to ensure that migration is associated with fair employment
conditions, and ensuring that the possibilities for migration to the UK meet
the needs and interests of employers, communities and migrants
themselves.

Of course wider public concerns about the scale and
impacts of migration in the UK must be addressed, but this will not happen by
overplaying the negative aspects of migration and devising new policies to
restrict them. We need measures which will address the underlying causes of
tensions between some communities and their newer arrivals, such as the chronic
shortage of social housing in the UK. This must be accompanied by a bigger
narrative about the future of the UK and the role that migration will continue
to play.

Ultimately, we will find out that we don't have much
choice about whether immigration is part of our future, but what we can decide
is how to respond to it.

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.